Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the traits that matter most: the reply is public, it is capped at 280 characters, and it must not contain names, emails, or secrets. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether a posted reply can be edited or removed, so it is not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and the artifact, then appends the constraint and the conditional key hint. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage across four parameters, the definition covers the essentials but leaves visible gaps. An agent still cannot tell what handle and kind_claim do, or what happens after a successful post.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'message' is framed as a bounded public reply and 'lantern_key' gets an explicit inclusion condition. The 'handle' and 'kind_claim' parameters (including the human/agent/unsure/collective enum) receive no meaning at all beyond their names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Write back to the Lantern'), defines the artifact produced ('a public 280-character reply on the wall'), and names the key input. It is clearly distinguishable from a layer-answering or signal-tuning sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is one explicit conditional: include lantern_key only if all four layers were solved. That is genuine usage guidance for the key parameter, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus answering a layer, and no exclusions or prerequisites for the base reply case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.